I agree it was a well written and thought- out post. But do you agree that suicide, polygamy, and prostitution should be legal?
But it's not a question of importance. It's just a question of fairness. One of the unfortunate realities about this subject is that it's hard not to come from a perspective of "making things legal". Actively reversing that which is currently illegal. That suggests that justification is required for the changing of the status quo. It's understandable since that's how things are right now. What I'm trying to do here, though, is take it back to the blank slate. Assume everything is legal. The onus should be on the rationale for criminalizing it. Is the rationale fair? Again, freedom should be the default position. Restricting freedom, no matter how unimportant you may think it is, should be done as sparingly as possible. EDIT: I want to reiterate that I think Invisible Fan's point about accountability is critical to this thought process. This level of freedom requires an equal level of assumed responsibility. Again, blank slate... assume every citizen must be accountable for their own choices.
If it is consenting action between 2 or more adults, yes. Regarding suicide, yes, very strongly in cases of terminal illness. I may not agree with all these actions, but I honor the right of consenting adults to chose their own path. Keep D&D Civil.
A man who discards his freedom to be a slave has deprived himself of the right to rely on freedom. This is not pure babble. A liberated black man wanting to go back being a slave has no business using freedom as an excuse to support his choice, for he has defy the value of freedom in the first place. You point of other addictions have nothing to do with drugs. Drugs in nature are master of manipulation and destruction.They have characteristics that puts themselves in another league. First, its intake establishes automatic addiction. Second, such addiction reinforces itself regardless of human will over time. Third, the addiction of drugs is so great that human will has no defense against it. Fourth, the involvement of gambling, alcohol, cigs do not always cause addiction, people gamble, people drink, and people smoked, but people don't always get addicted to them. However, drugs is absolute in addiction. This addictive absoluteness seperate drugs from the addictions you mentioned. Drugs are viruses. Only difference is drugs don't necessarily cause pain, but pleasure at the expense of health, self control and humanity. Sweet slavery. If you choose to put on a permanent handcuff, it's your choice, but that choice itself defies your choice of freedom as well as in the future. Free choice does not equal to free lifestyle, free state of things, or free conditions. Learn the difference. Choice of freedom is bad when such choice defied not only choice of freedom but also state of being free in the future. That's why the choice of choosing drugs is bad. Good hobbits relax a man and energize a man, making them fresh and be more productive. Drugs are the opposite, they deflates human spirits that drive the society forward. I know about mar1juana's effects. There is soft drugs and hardcore drugs. I'm always talking about the hardcore drugs. The problems I talked about will be enchanced when drugs are legalized. People use drugs right now at the risk of going bankcrupt, they will consume more drugs when it gets cheap after it's legalized, creating more problems than now. The last sentence is your crappy assertion on drugs. Opium was very popular in China in the 1800's and former part of 1900's. Chinese were then nicknamed "patients of east asia". Zombies walk around on the street thinking about nothing but opium, thousands of families destroyed due to it. The opium weakened both the mind and body of the Chinese. And China had no power to defend herself - of course there's other factors, but opium played a part in the decay of China. You have no evidence in what you claimed. Some people become drug addicts at the risk of going bankcruptcy now, and more people will become addicts once it's cheap after legalization. Drugs are viruses. It's immoral and irresponsible to spread viruses, to put them on shelves selling for profits. My position is, using freedom as an excuse to legalize drugs is wrong, since choice of freedom is wrong when such choice leads to defiance of choice of freedom as well as state of being free in the future. Also, help people fall is also wrong, how do you legitimize helping people to fall when they want to fall? BTW, I think you are using soft drugs as an excuse to legitimize hardcore drugs. Whether soft drugs like mar1juana should be classified as drugs is open to debate, but hardcore drugs like heroine should not be legalized.
Someone stated it is the right of everyman to basically do what he wants but it is equally other folx rights to not like it If you dope up all day . . it is my right to let you starve As I stated . . .if you gave folx unlimited freedom I think they would live severely limited lives I don't humanity would progress and grow When do you get unlimited freedom? Let's say . . at 18. Question: Would college enrollment drop? Can colleges have rules . .. or would that be against the rules? we talk about the decline in the accomplishments of american students it would bottom out I don't know. . I just see a slow descent into a disorganized unproductive sesspool . . . . until someone comes from outside. . and conquers us and put us under even worse rules That type of Free society would not last long Rocket River
Actually, you were right originally. Polyandry is when one woman has two or more husbands at one time but is not specific to marriage. For example, in pre-Islamic Arabia, reports are that a common form of this polyandry were that a woman would place a white flag in front of her home as an indicator to men. Numerous men would come and all engage in intercourse with the woman simultaneously. If she was impregnated, she would simply choose which of the men she wanted to be the father.
I've skimmed this thread so forgive me if I'm covering ground that has already been covered. I think the issue you're getting ChrisP is the very essence of the American democratic system. Ideally I think we would want the Libertarian world but IMO that's problematic because it ignores that there even for actions that initially may seem to not affect anyone more than the individual there are cost born by the society. As many have brought up drugs are one area where the affects of drg addition have repercussions far beyond the individual. At the sametime things like polygamy would present a huge host of problems in regard to legal relations. Can you imagine trying to divide assets in a polygamous divorce. I myself wouldn't be too bothered by polygamy if government was totally out of the marriage business, something that I don't think is that bad enough of an idea to begin with, but even then you would still deal with polygamous domestic partnership contracts and all sorts of complicated situations with those. The big winners out of allowing polygamy would be lawyers and, sorry MadMax, I don't think making more work for lawyers is necessarily good for society. What America is about ultimately is about balancing individual freedom with societal good. I personally err on the side of more freedom and think too many thigns are regulated needlessly but I'm not anywhere close to embracing the Libertarian view.
Polygamy doesn't have to run amok to cause significant social harm. For instance, one polygamous man with 10 wives has potential to "harm" up to 9 monogamous men by denying them access to suitable mates. It's entirely possible that monogamists (like yourself) stand to lose the most if polygamy were legal. Monogamy requires a stable or regulated ratio of one man to one woman (otherwise, some - or a lot of - monogamous people are going to be left out of the game). Unregulated polygamy would make it almost impossible to ensure the 1:1 sexual balance needed for the practice of Monogamy. A monogamist unable to find a mate may have to compromise his chosen lifestyle and enter into a polygamous arrangement in order to get a wife ... or forgo "the pursuit of happiness" (in this case, marital bliss). I think you misread what I wrote. I wasn't trying to correct you or anything. Just saw you were using matri-this and patri-that. Thought you might find it easier to use "polyandry" and "polygyny" to differentiate from plain old generic "polygamy." See below.
Isanely off topic, but I think communal marriages (multiple husbands and wives) and communal child rearing in the right environment would provide better adjusted children instead of children raised from dysfunctional families geared towards toughing it out. It's just assumed that monogamy is necessary for intimacy, but if both partners share equal standing then it'd be something they decide collectively. It wouldn't hurt to trust more people in the world.
